Talk:Rupert Covered Bridge No. 56

Removal of repetition
I edited the article to remove the constantly repeated long name of the bridge. I believe that such a short article is spoiled by constant repetition of such a long and unwieldy phrase in every paragraph. User Jakec keeps removing those changes and seems to think he knows better, while not offering any reason for his reversion. This is tedious. I have undone his reversion again and expect him to have a reasonable discussion about why he feels it is good style to keep repeating the same long phrase in every paragraph, especially when the paragraphs themselves are so short. Cliff (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said on the last revert, many of my Good Articles do this as well, and no complaint has been made by any of the reviewers. As you may know, GAs are held to very high standards of prose. Anyway, for example: Tangascootack Creek, Solomon Creek, Lake Chillisquaque. Even featured articles that I have no involvement with, like Larrys Creek mention it by name once per paragraph. Featured Articles have pretty much perfect prose, so I doubt that Not mentioning an article subject at all (seriously, you removed every mention of the bridge's name from the article) is extremely confusing for readers. --Jakob (talk)  18:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't confusing at all. The name of the bridge is at the top of the page in large letters, as well as on the panel at the side of the page. Just how many times does the reader need to be reminded of the full name of the bridge? The article only contains about twenty-two lines of text!

The fact that other articles have similar poor style is no defence. You should read a few professionally produced encyclopaedias and see how many of them repeat such a long phrase in every paragraph, then ask yourself why they don't. Cliff (talk) 10:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that other articles have similar poor style is no defence. It is if they have passed the Good Articles or Featured Articles process. Since there's obviously going to be no convincing you, I'll suggest a compromise: half the uses will be reinstated; the other half will stay removed. --Jakob (talk)  17:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't agree to that. Nine uses of the full phrase have been removed, from an article that only contains eleven paragraphs (many of which only consist of a single line). Re-injecting half of them them would be ridiculous.

Why don't you step back from your blinkered and defensive attitude, stop hiding behind other so-called "good" articles - and GA articles aren't rated for style in anything other than a very limited way that does not include repetition; they are rated as such largely for verifiable factual content, and adherence to wiki standards - and re-read what the article was like before and what it is like now? My changes are not any kind of personal attack on you; they are a genuine attempt to improve an article that stood out as containing lots of awkward and distracting repetition. If anything, it needs further work to mitigate the large number of single-sentence paragraphs and stop it reading like a list. Surely you can see that it reads better now?

The prose standard required of a featured article is higher; you never know, some of the articles you are defending could become featured ones if they were written in a better style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CWB001 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)